Inequities in access to palliative and end-of-life care in the black population in Canada: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving equity and early access to palliative care for underserved populations in Canada is a priority. Little is known regarding access to palliative and end-of-life care in the Black population. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review using the framework by Arksey and O'Malley to identify knowledge, access gaps, and experiences of palliative and end-of-life care among Blacks living with life-limiting illnesses in Canada. Primary studies, discussion papers, books, and reports were considered eligible. We followed a comprehensive search strategy developed by an information scientist. Searches were performed in the following bibliographic databases: Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO via OVID, CINAHL via EBSCOhost, Scopus and Cochrane Library via Wiley. The search strategy was derived from three main concepts: (1) Black people; (2) Canada and Canadian provinces; (3) Palliative, hospice, or end-of-life care. No publication date or language limits were applied. Titles and abstracts were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and full text by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: The search yielded 233 articles. Nineteen articles were selected for full-text review, and 7 articles met the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2010 and 2021, and conducted in the provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia only. Studies used both quantitative and qualitative methods and included cancer decedents, next of kin, family caregivers and religious leaders. Sample sizes in various studies ranged from 6 - 2,606 participants. Included studies reported a general lack of understanding about palliative and end-of-life care, positive and negative experiences, and limited access to palliative and end-of-life care for Blacks, across all care settings. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest limited knowledge of palliative care and inequities in access to palliative and end-of-life care for Blacks living with life-limiting illnesses in 2 Canadian provinces. There is an urgent need for research to inform tailored and culturally acceptable strategies to improve understanding and access to palliative care and end-of-life care among Blacks in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.048 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".